Environment Students 50/50 F/MLess formal participationUsing computers Thinking "out loud"Some students visibly distractedStudents from across Harvard, early to mid-career 50/50 M/FMore formal participationNo computersPrepared answersStudents appeared engagedMostly HBS, early career The Learning Environment: Instructor/Classroom/Students Class Snapshots Aspects of Fairness:Role of the Instructor Less intenseLower energyRespectfulImpact on student learning? High TensionSustained energyRespectfulImpact on student learning? Little student-student interactionTeacher was pivot point of discussion and stayed in pitStudents could "hide" in classroomFewer points of discussion

Extensive student-studentTeacher controlled spaceExtensive board useStudents "on display"Heavy discussion of case elements Fewer voicesQuestioned process outlined in case: "How did complex change happen so quickly with few actors?"Did not always use evidence, specifically from case, to support pointLearning from peer experience Many students spoke"One and done" - modeled case method style of participationUsed evidence to support argumentDiscussion centered on case content more than experienceLearning to listen and respond to evolving conversation Corrections Factual error corrected with positive reinforcement No room for error Correction didn't stop conversation flowStudent maintained legitimacyStudents learned correct informationInstructor modeled positive way to address misinformation in discussionExample of teacher as "coach"

Students referenced case exhibits, instructor followed closely and asked clarifying questionsThreat of "social death" Being "right" privledgedMay impact the participation of some studentsExample of instructor as "referee" Instructor as Expert Directly shared knowledge of events and protagonists in response to student commentDuring concluding remark, shared a "lesson-learned" from his work Gave a lecturette on "diffusing the cycle" of conflict in partnerships Maintained a neutral facilitator roleDidn't reference any personal experienceDeferred to 'experts' Students gained a deeper understanding of process and history of caseLess abstract/more realClearly linked case with reality Signaled it was acceptable to refer to experience in discussionDiscussion nuanced and deep Discussion focused on case materialNo students referenced experience in commentsComments had observational, objective toneDiscussion broader and less nuanced Instructor not part of discussion, so no co-constructing of knowledge amongst instructor and students Generating debate Took vote beforehand and split class on opinionInstigated opposing viewpointsVisibly responds in encouraging and attentive way when student disagrees with previous comment, signaling approval No pre-work before classNo promotion of opposing viewpoints, even when opportunities aroseNo vote or similar device to identify different opinionsQuestions and follow-up questions oriented towards how/why/action Learn to advocate for viewpointLearn to use evidence offensively/defensivelyStudents voice strong opinions; few discuss tension between optionsPresumption of right and wrong No right/wrong answerLearn consensus buildingLess awareness of opposing views Students not foreced to play a role or take sides What responsibility does the instructor have for acknowledging their own position/ideology/world view? "Almost every action in the classroom - the hands that are recognised, the questions that are asked, the readings that are assigned - betrays a point of view." ~ C.R. Christensen